Memeorandum

October 16, 2005

Rove On The Bubble, Libby In Trouble

The NY Times told us yesterday that Karl Rove spent 4 1/2 hours with the grand jury. Today, the buzz is about the Times explanation of the Judy Miller saga, and her own account of her grand jury testimony.

Quickly - Rove is in trouble. He testified for too long to be simply clearing up a few loose ends. On the other hand, Department of Justice guidelines discourage prosecutors from bringing in witnesses they plan to indict without warning them first. Hence, I am handicapping the probability of a Rove indictment as about 50%, or a shade higher.

And the charges? Special Counsel Fitzgerald will have a hard time getting Rove for perjury/obstruction on his Matt Cooper testimony, but he is almost certainly weighing charges of mishandling classified information. Rove's vulnerability is that he was a second source (of sorts - "I heard that, too" is pretty slim evidence of anything), for Bob Novak, and a primary source for Matt Cooper.

Libby has moved up in my rankings, and is now the most likely official to be indicted of whom we are aware (Novak's original source remains shrouded in mystery [UPDATE: TIME says that "Fitzgerald, says a lawyer who's involved in the case, "knows who [Novak's original source] is--and it's not someone at the White House." See UPDATE]). Libby's primary vulnerability seems to be perjury and obstruction of justice for his failure to disclose his June 23 conversation with Juy Miller. Obviously, his testimony may have been replete with caveats, but no one can argue that, based on Ms. Miller's evidence at least, the conversation was not material to the investigation. [And since Tim Russert may have disclosed a tip about Wilson's wife to Libby in July, Russert is no longer an alibi witness for Libby. Exhale.]

Libby is also vulnerable on a charge of mishandling of classified information. Probability of indictment - 70%. [The WaPo follows up]

So what will happen next? Fitzgerald is weighing two competing story lines. Let's remember back to the spring of 2003: the US had liberated Iraq, and Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech declaring the end of major combat operations had been delivered on May 1. However, a nation wondered, where were the Weapons of Mass Destruction that had been an important part of the case for war?

The CIA and the White House, in an atmosphere of mutual recrimination, began a series of self-serving, blame-shifting leaks. Joe Wilson entered the story, anonymously, in a May 6 column by Nick Kristof which essentially said that Cheney had asked for a report on Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, then ignored the "it never happened" answer because it undermined the case for war.

Walter Pincus depicts the competing factions in his June 12, 2003 article - Administration official say the CIA failed to share their information, and a CIA analyst says the Administration only heard what it wanted to hear. Joe Wilson re-appears in the Pincus story, and a June 13 Kristof column.

And how did the White House respond to Wilson? There are the competing story lines on offer:

...what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby
engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower,
Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer.
What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its
outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty:
the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war
in Iraq.

Set against that is the "Press, do your job" view offered by Howard Fineman and others (OK, like me). This theme is that Joe Wilson was not an independent, impartial, third party retired diplomat who happened to side with the CIA. In fact, as should have been reported, Wilson was in bed, literally and metaphorically, with the CIA faction trying to torpedo the White House.

Here is Howard Fineman from Oct 2003:

...the motive wasn’t revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to
explain why, in their view, Wilson wasn’t a neutral investigator, but,
a member of the CIA’s leave-Saddam-in-place team.

Or, torn from the pages of today's news, here is Judy Miller describing her testimony:

My interview notes show that Mr. Libby sought from the beginning,
before Mr. Wilson's name became public, to insulate his boss from Mr.
Wilson's charges. According to my notes, he told me at our June meeting
that Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr.
Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program.

As I told the grand jury, I recalled Mr. Libby's frustration and
anger about what he called "selective leaking" by the C.I.A. and other
agencies to distance themselves from what he recalled as their
unequivocal prewar intelligence assessments. The selective leaks trying
to shift blame to the White House, he told me, were part of a
"perverted war" over the war in Iraq.

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard compares both storylines with the evidence presented by the Senate Standing Subcommitte on Intelligence in their 2004 report. The case can be made that Joe Wilson exaggerated the case against Cheney and the Administration.

Well. If Fiztgerald embraces the Bush Brute Squad theory, Libby and Rove are in serious trouble. On the other hand, if he accepts the notion that the leakers lacked criminal intent, there is still the matter of their disclosure of classified information: the Wilson trip was declassifed when Tenet gave a statement on July 11, so leaks about that in June may have been criminal. And Ms. Plame's status at the CIA was apparently classified, even if the people talking about her were not actually aware of that.

Fitzgerald has a serious quandary. I am pretty sure he does not want to make history by indicting a group of White House officials and then losing at trial. However, *BASED ON what has been publicly disclosed*, there appear to be plausible defenses for the charges involving classified information (and I hope to come back to that in a subsequent post).

As to possible perjury/obstruction charges - Fitzgerald seems to have received an extraordinary level of cooperation from the White House. If he does not indict on any underlying criminal act, but only on failure to cooperate with the investigation, that will bode very poorly for any future investigations into this or subsequent Adminstrations.

Now, Fitzgerald may indict on perjury or obstruction almost on the basis of personalities - if he thinks Libby has been trying to be cute with him, he may indict Libby for, in effect, having a bad attitude. Or, a bit more seriously, he may settle for perjury because he "knows" a crime ocurred, but is not sure he can prove it.

Fitzgerald won't bring a case he can't win, and I don't see any sure bets for him on the table. My guess is that we will see indictments or a resolution this upcoming week.

MORE: A plea deal? Sure, he could threaten someone with the long sentences of the Espionage Act, and settle for a plea to perjury and resignation in disgrace. But Rove/Libby/whoever can counter with, "if you bring charges and lose, you'll never eat lunch in this town again, but I'll be pardoned in Jan 2009 even if you win". A quandary. And I don't see these White House officials resigning in disgrace when they feel they did nothing wrong, but that is just another guess.

KEEP HANDY: Dan McLaughlin walked through some case law on the Espionage Act; here is a useful timeline for the early going on this scandal.

UPDATE: From TIME:

Another character in the drama remains unnamed: the original source for
columnist Robert Novak, who wrote the first piece naming Plame.
Fitzgerald, says a lawyer who's involved in the case, "knows who it
is--and it's not someone at the White House."

The other hint given by Novak is that his first source was "not a partisan gunslinger". Not partisan compared to whom? Offhand, Karen Hughes was in the White House Iraq Group but is no longer in the White House; Ari Fleischer has stepped down (But is he a gunslinger? Jane Hamsher makes the case against Ari.); George Tenet was suggested by Bob Somerby. Colin Powell was in the loop on the "Wilson's wife" tidbit. All would meet Novak's description as a "senior Admistration official".

And Walter Pincus of the WaPo described his source (for a leak similar to that received by Novak) as a "current or former Administration official". The WaPo helpfully provides a partial list here.

Comments

The White House wasn't criminal enough, the press has finally tattled on itself, and the CIA is getting Gossed. Whence Victoria Wilson, or is it Valerie Flame(master stroke that) and her washed up hubby, Ambassador Munchausen?
====================================================

If anyone is indicted over all this nonsense it should be the Wilsons. Without Joe running all over Washington (often with his wife in tow) blabbing about his trip to Niger none of this would have happened.

Note that Wilson's wife's employment was no big deal to Judy and she can't even remember who gave her the name because she talked to several people about her. In fact, Judy may have met her at the CIA when she was briefed before being embedded in Iraq:

The DCI Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) provides intelligence support aimed at protecting the US and its interests from all foreign weapons threats. WINPAC officers are a diverse group with a variety of backgrounds and work experiences; they include mathematicians, engineers (nuclear, chem/bio, mechanical, and aerospace, among others), physicists, economists, political scientists, computer specialists, and physical scientists. Many have advanced degrees and in-depth expertise, while others have a Bachelor’s degree in their fields and have learned most of what they know on the job. On any given day, our analysts could be answering a question from the President, assessing information about a foreign missile test, or developing new computational models to determine blast effects. Key parts of our mission include:

* Studying the development of the entire spectrum of threats, from weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, radiological, chemical, and biological weapons) to advanced conventional weapons like lasers, advanced explosives, and armor, as well as all types of missiles, including ballistic, cruise, and surface-to-air. We study systems from their earliest development phase through production, deployment, and transfers to other countries.

The one (obvious) point I'd bring up is this. That things look bad for Libby and Rove right now is based on the leaking of four people, two of whom are Rove and Libby themselves. (The other two are Miller and Cooper.) We have very minimal info. But the fact that things look bad for them despite having much of that minimal info comes straight from Rove and Libby's lawyers, means FitzGerald likely has other evidence that we outsiders don't even know exists. I still think the 8-pages of redacted stuff submitted to the judges means that there's more to this case (and things might possibly be even worse for Rove and Libby).

On the other hand, if the info that's publicly known is all there is to this case, well, then I think FitzGerald has the decision of a lifetime. Would be a tough, tough case to convict on (depending on the specific charges, of course).

Lastly: I haven't read it, but Time magazine supposedly reports that if indicted, Rove has decided he would resign immediately.

And I think that the blogger Digby has made a good point about Miller's notes mistating the name as "Victoria Wilson." Apparently several reporters covering the story in the early months incorrectly referred to Valerie as Victoria. As Digby speculated, perhaps Fleischer was one of the sources who was throwing out the incorrect name to many reporters (who were apparently too lazy to double-check).

Whatever the result, there is a far more serious "First Amendment" issue here than the jailing of Judith Miller. If Fitzgerald indicts under some theory of mishandling classified information on these facts, he will have elevated prosecutorial silliness to a level unachieved even by Ken Starr. The problem, of course, is that it will create enormous political leverage over any future bureaucrat or White House official who speaks to the press -- leaked information that damages the opposition politically will now give rise to demands for prosecution (and, in fairness to what has happened here, it should). Since we all know that information is grossly overclassified, we will have defaulted our way into an official secrets act, of sorts, notwithstanding our long unwillingness to enact such a law. It is beyond ironic that the Fitzgerald appointment followed extended demands by the leading organs of the MSM, including particularly the New York Times.

Charging public officials with mishandling classified information should be troubling to even the most hardcore Bush hating lefty.

Why should this be troubling? Do we want public officials to mishandle classified information? Can you give me the upside to that, especially when its being used for petty political revenge?

I also don't see the upside to the pattern that DC has developed of powerful government officials using the protected status of "media sources" as cover to disseminate propaganda to its citizens.

I am not going to have any trouble accepting any decision Fitzgerald makes. After five years of this propagandizing , deceitful, elitist administration, I'm just happy to get some answers from someone whose honesty I trust.

"I am not going to have any trouble accepting any decision Fitzgerald makes." -- JayZeeDee, October 16, 2005 at 12:22 PM.

When Wilson is indicted, or when no one is indicted, and when the left begins its hard, harmonic turn against Fitzgerald ("Questions about Fitzgerald emerge, say sources"), please remember this quote from our friend JayZeeDee. Please remember that he swore -- SWORE -- that he would accept Fitzgferald's decision.

Glad to have you back, TM, things got a little weird in the comments while you were gone.

I know there is a disagreement between left and right about what Rove was referring to when he told Cooper about info soon to be declassified. But I'm curious if there is any evidence that it was (or was only) Wilson's trip itself, declassified by Tenet's statement, other than the fact of Tenet's statement itself, and that it was issued that day -- which is of course not nothing. I'm just curious if there's more I have not seen.

It seems to me more likely that the relevant info was the intelligence report based on Wilson's trip, which never was, in fact, declassified, right? One piece of evidence that seems pretty strong is that it is the punchline of Novak's original column of July 14 2003:

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.

I would place the percentages higher. Mainly because of the dark matter of this investigation--what Fitzgerald has been able to piece together about the coordination between Libby and Rove and the rest of the WHIG association-in-fact enterprise.

Also, the Republicans' bleating about the Espionage Act is misplaced. This wasn't a leak of merely classified information. This was the deliberate spread of information designated as "Secret: Noforn." More specifically, an undercover CIA operative. (And spare me the "she wasn't really covert" b.s. Fitzgerald and every court who's looked at the full set of facts have reached a different conclusion--a conclusion entitled to much more deference than apologia from hardcore partisans).

This wasn't whistleblowing--this was the Bush administration using national security secrets as ammunition in an inside-the-beltway spin effort.

I'll add that if this leak (Brewster-Jennings and Plame) resulted in the death of US or foreign agents, Fitzgerald, the Congress, the CIA, and the public, might have a hard time concluding "no harm - no foul" by the White House.

Geek:
There's no evidence of this wider conspiracy that you've been promoting.

The evidence seems - seems - to be that Fitzgerald may be using a statute dealing with the mishandling of classified information. The IIPA wasn't violated. I think most everyone - right and left - agrees on that.

If that law, i.e, the classified information, is applied here, it doesn't matter whether the official is a whistleblower revealing government corruption or an evil neocon Republican official dishing dirt on a patriotic former Ambassador who's mission was to save the Republic from those evil neocons.

Just be careful what you wish for is all I'm saying.

Believe it or not, there's more important ideas involved here than just getting your political opponents.

Special Counsel Fitzgerald will have a hard time getting Rove for perjury/obstruction on his Matt Cooper testimony, but he is almost certainly weighing charges of mishandling classified information.

It seems to me that unless it can be shown that somebody actually showed the INR memo to a reporter (as has been alleged), or knew Plame was covert, there's not much to go on. I'm also wondering if we have a complete list of the players.

Novak famously used the "no partisan gunslinger" line, and Judy didn't think "Flame" came from Libby. Obviously Judy's disclaimer would make zero sense if the only one she was talking to on the subject was Libby. Could Libby be Novak's non-gunslinger, and Rove be Judy's other source? Sounds dubious to me. Neither of those appear to make any sense unless there was someone else out there talking. Or are both of them dissembling to protect sources? Presumably Novak squealed (since he's not in jail), but are we sure who his (presumably main) source was? Or is there a chance for a mysterious guest indictee? Like possibly Fleischer?

Could it be that the intelligence report based on Joe's report never, in fact, existed? That could explain a few things. Maybe nobody ever wanted to put Joe on paper.
============================================

I meant, on my last sentence, that the same might happen for Libby. If the case is based on Judy's testimony alone (a big if), I think she herself provides enough reasonable doubt for a good defender to avoid a conviction.

Lack of a report would explain the CIA's present consternation even in the lack of a plot; it explains the White House's belief that they've been double-crossed by the CIA; it explains how Wilson is such a madman, and the press is self-explantory, finally.
===================================================

SMG, if this is so, "If that law, i.e, the classified information, is applied here, it doesn't matter whether the official is a whistleblower revealing government corruption or an evil neocon Republican official".... then why isn't anyone else mentioning it? If the law Fitz is operating under has to do with handling classified material, shouldn't Wilson be in everyone's discussion?

Kim:
"It explains the White House's belief that they've been double-crossed by the CIA;"

There's no doubt in my mind that that occurred. That at least a faction in the CIA was in open revolt against the White House. And they were leaking all kinds of information - including classified stuff - to the press. Part of me still holds to the idea that Wilson pulled a sting; he made his (false) accusations in an attempt to draw the W.H. out. They bit on it.

But that doesn't exonerate Libby or Rove from violating the law. If Fitzgerald's got the goods on them, charge them. And if they're found guilty, string 'em up.

This isn't a nice tidy morality tale where one side is the child of light and the other the child of dark. Lots of hard ball politics being played.

Rogue CIA operatives can spread anti-administration disinformation with impunity and it can't be rebutted using the truth because the truth is classified.

I have no problem whatsoever with the WH rebutting Wilson with the truth. However the only classified "truth" that they revealed was very peripheral to any rebuttal. Wilson's wife recommended him for the job. Big friggin deal. She didn't have the power to actually send him on the mission. She offered him as a candidate. Clearly someone ELSE with the proper authority actually authorized his trip. WHO?

They didn't need to bring his wife into it at all. Not at all. They could have said "he wasn't sent by Cheney, it was someone at CIA who recommended him." Does this materially change any of the salient points of the WH rebuttal? It does not.

The sheer pettiness and reflexive character assassination of these bastards is what has undone them. This is what I can't believe you guys are continually defending. They never needed to bring Plame into it. It was malicious, petty and incredibly irresponsible.

Yes, Macho, I'll even come here to eat crow if Fitzy comes up empty....or to CROW if he doesn't.

There's so much we don't know. But, wasn't it implied on another thread, that Novak's "non gunslinging" source was Miller? I think the best thing the admin has going for it is that this whole thing is going to be all but impossible for the average American to follow. Enter Fox News and the Disinformation Brigade.

politica obscura:
"If the law Fitz is operating under has to do with handling classified material, shouldn't Wilson be in everyone's discussion?"

Yeah, I guess so.

If you do a search here, you'll find a post where Tom discussed this. There was mention that perhaps the law didn't apply to Wilson since he was a private citizen at the time. He didn't fall under the statute's provisions. It's unclear.

In any case, there's a world of difference between an obscure former Ambassador leaking classified information versus the President's and Vice President's top advisers and chief of staff respectively doing the same. The latter, let's face it, is a helluva lot more serious.

SMG, I see your point. But basically , as a citizen, I admire whistleblowers, because I crave the truth. I despise propagandists for the same reason.

The law's the law. Isn't this something we all have to accept? If a whistleblowing hero goes up against it, and pays the price, I admire that the way I admire any heroic act. But it doesn't mean I want "classified" to be a meaningless designation.

Does anyone not think it odd the best way to get "even" with Joe Wilson, was to out his wife as a CIA agent? It seems the brilliant, devious, & powerful Rove, as he is so often described) could have come up with something more creative and punishing!!!

JayDee:
Okay, fair point and it's a good distinction - i.e., someone exposing corruption versus someone using it for political advantage. Although I'm not sure how the law could be applied to allow one and not the other.

JayZee wrote: "Why should this be troubling? Do we want public officials to mishandle classified information? Can you give me the upside to that, especially when its being used for petty political revenge?"

I'll admit I'm not nearly as knowledgable as most of the great commentors on this blog but, how exactly is disclosing who Joe Wilson is married to "petty political revenge"? How is vengeful in any way? I thought it's just a simple fact. Like I said a lot of this stuff is over my head, but that much isn't hard to figure out. He's either married to her or he's not.

Couldn't it be as simple as the special prosecutor has yet to uncover a crime, and is wrapping up loose ends? He must be metaphysically certain that a crime has or has not been comitted. He's going to be ridiculed no matter what his position. If I were him, I'd want to be certain that there was absolutely nothing I hadn't looked into and double and triple checked.

If Wilson was being discussed with reporters as early as June 25, the assumption is that the WH brought it up. Could it not have been the reporters who had heard rumblings from or about Wilson? It just seems, to me, that he was a small part of the "what happened to WMD" discussions. The reporters could have been throwing him into the discussions and the WH could have not been picking up the pointers to him specifically. I guess I mean that KR and SL didn't try to actively find out anything more than minimum on Wilson and his wife until his piece was published. Plus, they did so to answer reporters questions, more than for any "revenge" motive.

This theme is that Joe Wilson was not an independent, impartial, third party retired diplomat who happened to side with the CIA. In fact, as should have been reported, Wilson was in bed, literally and metaphorically, with the CIA faction trying to torpedo the White House.

The problem with this theory is that we know for a fact that the White House was ignoring contrary intelligence and spinning what little information they had, and that professional CIA (and other intelligence agency) analysts had been providing accurate assessments of the raw intelligence to no avail. It wasn't about "getting the White House", it was about self-defense.

And the bottom line is simply that Libby, Rove, et. al. chose to try and discredit the source of the information, rather than telling the truth. And the reason why they couldn't is that the truth was even more damning than Wilson's own story. (Cheney had been briefed on the subject, and been told that the documents could not be genuine --- but this briefing was not based specifically on Wilson's conclusions.)

As to the question of people who claimed they knew the documents were forged before the CIA got a hold of the documents --- If someone passes me a memo on your letterhead in which you claim to be Linda Lovelace, I'm going to be skeptical. And when I establish for a fact that you aren't Linda Lovelace, I'm going to conclude that the memo on your letterhead is a forgery.

I have no problem whatsoever with the WH rebutting Wilson with the truth. However the only classified "truth" that they revealed was very peripheral to any rebuttal. Wilson's wife recommended him for the job. Big friggin deal. She didn't have the power to actually send him on the mission. She offered him as a candidate. Clearly someone ELSE with the proper authority actually authorized his trip. WHO?

They didn't need to bring his wife into it at all. Not at all. They could have said "he wasn't sent by Cheney, it was someone at CIA who recommended him." Does this materially change any of the salient points of the WH rebuttal? It does not.

This is such a simple point. I wish the WH defenders would stop dancing around it.

Rove spending 4 hours before the GJ on its last day hearing testimony is not unusual. You assume he spent four hours answering questions. In fact, what happens in this kind of circumstance is that the prosecutor invites the grand jurors to pose questions to the witness -- maybe for the first time -- but he usually screens the questions with the witness out of the room, and this can sometimes lead to lengthy periods where the witness is waiting in the hall while the grand jurors and the prosecutor meet behind closed doors. Once the questions are decided upon, and the wording of the question is resolved, the witness comes back into the room and the prosecutor will generally read the question and take the answer. The witness will then leave the room, and the grand jury and the prosecutor will discuss the witness's answer, and then discuss the next question.

1 - I don't see what is meant by "If he does not indict on any underlying criminal act, but only on failure to cooperate with the investigation..." Fitzgerald is a serious federal prsecutor; we're not talking about Ronnie Earle from Pudunk, Texas. A federal indictment for obstruction must list specific acts (or it will be dismissed): it cannot simple allege "failure to cooperate."

2 - A 1001 violation for lying to a federal investigator (usually the FBI) is easier to prove (or get away with, as the case may be, because the FBI does not tape but only takes notes of conversations with witnesses/suspects) than perjury or obstruction. Right now I remember only press accounts of grand jury testimony - not conversations with the FBI - but I wonder if Rove or Libby have any vulnerability here.

The problem with this theory is that we know for a fact that the White House was ignoring contrary intelligence and spinning what little information they had, and that professional CIA (and other intelligence agency) analysts had been providing accurate assessments of the raw intelligence to no avail.

Nonsense. The White House declassified part of the National Intelligence Estimate precisely to put the lie to those assertions. The CIA was reporting Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium as fact, right up to the start of the war. Here's their "accurate assessment":

Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.

A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

"Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury say there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson -- not the other way around.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified before the grand jury, saying he was alerted by someone in the media to Plame's identity, according to a source familiar with his account. Cooper has previously testified that he brought up the subject of Plame with Libby and that Libby responded that he had heard about her from someone else in the media, according to sources knowledgeable about Cooper's testimony."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500036_pf.html

"Libby has testified that he learned about Plame from NBC correspondent Tim Russert, according to a source who spoke with The Washington Post some months ago. Russert said in a statement last year that he told the prosecutor that "he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative" and that he did not provide such information to Libby in July 2003."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201830.html

Is there any credible reporting to support Wilson's original claim - made through Kristof - that the WH knew about the forged documents before the SOTU. I read somewhere that even Wilson now distances himself from those claims.

Well, I suppose if your BSD is fairly advanced the "fake but accurate" label applies widely. The *FACT* that Wilson lied his head off is nothing next to the point that Chimpy McBushitlerburton is evil. Even if Wilson lied (and he obviously did. Even the Dems on the coommittee agreed on that.) the 'underlying story' must be true because it exposes Chimpy McBushitlerburton's evilness.

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.

My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name.

.... [skipping to June 23rd meeting recollections] ...

But he added that the C.I.A. "took it upon itself to try and figure out more" by sending a "clandestine guy" to Niger to investigate. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I thought "clandestine guy" was a reference to Mr. Wilson - Mr. Libby's first reference to him in my notes.

This seems to indicate that the first meeting on the subject was discussing the source for Pincus and Kristoff disinformation as an unnamed agent with a CIA wife, who were later identified as Joe and Val. Judy Miller may have known immediately who Libby was talking about WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL IDENTIFICATION.

I'm not talking about any possible crimes here. I'm talking merely about the petty little girlishness of these fools. Whether or not they knew she was covert or had intent or any of that is the answer Fitzgerald will give us. No one else, certainly not you. But the question remains why mention Wilson's wife at all?

They could have said simply, "Wilson is lying when he says Cheney's office sent him. In fact, it was someone at CIA." But instead, they named a name, or a Flame. Why? Does it affect Wilson's veracity that his wife recommended his name? To tinfoil hat wearers maybe, but to anyone else? No, the only reason to mention her name was to a. allege cronyism and b. make him look like a weak man whose wife gets him work. Neither point is salient to whether or not Wilson's allegations were true. Rather they are typical pubbie dirty politics, Rove-style.

And clearly they knew this was wrong, "super duper secret double cover" and "I've said too much already". Leaking it like high schoolers in the washroom? What putzes. If they had a case to make, they should have come out and made it in the open. Which Wilson, for all his faults, had the courage to do. This was asinine behavior, whether or not they get nailed for any technical crime.

What makes this discussion so amusing is how hard you all would be paddling the other way if we just reversed the D's and the R's.

I see we have a big Cooper backer here. Big Coop has a great memory when it comes to that suspicious sounding quote (which was not in his notes)...too bad his memory sucks when it comes to the original premise of HIS call TO Rove...welfare. At least Rove has a contemporaneous email to back him up.

Sorry JD, your story doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't you mention that the person who sent him on the mission was his wife... he is going around town saying it was "the Vice President" what better way to drive home the point that this guy can't be trusted than to tell the truth that Wilson "Ain't married to the VP"!

Seems pretty logical... not petty or "girlish" as you so (insultingly to women) put it.

Boris, did Plame authorize Wilson to go on the trip? Did she have that authority ? No. So she didn't send him on the trip. Why mention her? I'm pretty sure everybody in that sumphole we call Washington DC gets recommended for their jobs by somebody else. What matters is who gave the ok. It wasn't Plame. Mentioning her, secret or not, was irrelevant. It was done to make him look like a schmuck, because they didn't want to discuss the truth openly. And because they're snaky, slimy little bastards who like to drag people's families into things. Ask Cindy McCain.

Many have speculated that there was a faction in the CIA that strongly opposed the Bush administration's emerging policy towards Iraq. Perhaps the linking of Wilson with a CIA wife was meant to indicate to reporters - who presumably are "in the know" - that Wilson was just part of that cabal rather than a truly new, independent and informed voice for the anti-Administration point of view.

It seems to me that unless it can be shown that somebody actually showed the INR memo to a reporter (as has been alleged), or knew Plame was covert, there's not much to go on.

If they can show that Rove/Libby/Ari learned of her identity through the INR memo, and then passed on that information to non-authorized recipients, they're in the soup.

Could Libby be Novak's non-gunslinger, and Rove be Judy's other source? . . . Or is there a chance for a mysterious guest indictee? Like possibly Fleischer?

Miller described Libby as a "Straight-shooter." Pure coincidence, or a bit of a hint?

Fleischer is the big favorite for the third indictment slot, according to the DC rumor mill. Remember this: Fleischer left the WH before Bush's "Cooperate Fully or get Fired" edict. More than likely, he's lawyered up and has had much less to say to the grand jury.

It was done to make him look like a schmuck, because they didn't want to discuss the truth openly.

What "truth" are you referring to? Given the developing timeline, the Administration appears to have been trying to discredit the claims made by Wilson anonymously in the Kristof and Pincus articles. They were sufficiently untrue, particularly about the forged documents, that Wilson has distanced himself from those claims.

Wolfman:
"The linking of Wilson with a CIA wife was meant to indicate to reporters - who presumably are "in the know" - that Wilson was just part of that cabal"

I think that's the best explanation for the revelation.

Wilson has said that it was done to destroy her career (even though she was not working in a covert capacity at the time) and to send a signal to Administration critics that there would be a backlash against them.

But that seems pretty weak. A better argument, as you note, would be Libby attempting to point out that Plame, working in the CPD, was part of that faction in the Agency trying to undermine the Administration.

Instead of arguing that this was an example of the evil Bushitler regime again going after opponents, the best narrative is that it was an example of bureaucratic infighting between different parts of the government.

To me the more interesting story - mostly unreported - is the way that political opponents use the press to fight their battles. And the fact, I believe, that the press becomes participants - rather than simply reporters - in the political wars to some degree.

Wilson started this chain of events by leaking to the NYT (Kristof) then others. Had he told the truth, I'd have a different view of this entire affair than I currently do.

Wolfmand:
"Me the more interesting story - mostly unreported - is the way that political opponents use the press to fight their battles."

Well, it's certainly not in the interest of the press to reveal that. Once that happens, the sources dry up.

And isn't that, in part, what Miller and Cooper were concerned about when they refused to testify? They wanted a release from Libby that they could talk (although Miller's request seems to be more complex). Otherwise, future sources would be reluctant to give them information, i.e., spin things.

Hmm, remember that story in the Times and Post about six months ago re Iran's nuclear capacity? Someone released classified information from the NIE stating that the mullahs were 8-10 years away from putting together a nuclear device? Clearly, that was an attempt by someone to weaken the W.H.'s hardline against Iran.

My opinion is based on few facts and poorly developed intuition. Novak had said something to the effect that the source passed on the Plame information almost by accident and is not a partisan gunslinger. Powell neatly fits the description of not being a partisan gunslinger. I also recall that the INR memo (marked with the scarlet "s") was commissioned either by or for Powell; certainly by his agency. Also, Powell's agency (INR) was the most skeptical about the yellowcake claims (note that Powell himself never repeated those claims).

That Wilson's wife in the CIA arranged his "mission" only seems irrelevant if one assumes all parties were acting in good faith and that Joe's selection was unremarkable in every other way.

Joe's selection was NOT unremarkable in ANY way so how he got selected is very much a REMARKABLE part of the story. Furthermore, all evidence points to the fact that the trip was set up to address administration claims these agents believed were untrue.

As if CIA employees would be unaware of uses of disinformation if that's what it really was or that it would be their business to rebut it.

The BEST spin one can attribute to their motive is: "Nobody is listening to us !!! Why won't you LISTEN to us !!!"

remember that story in the Times and Post about six months ago re Iran's nuclear capacity? Someone released classified information from the NIE stating that the mullahs were 8-10 years away from putting together a nuclear device? Clearly, that was an attempt by someone to weaken the W.H.'s hardline against Iran.

I generally don't have any problem with "leaks" that accurately inform the public. But we have to trust the gatekeepers - the press - to assess the credibility of their sources. Some have lost that trust; I'm sure others have it and abuse it.

IF any indictments happen such as perjury, classified material, etc. will people like Miller have to testify? And have to repond to a defense attorney? Could whoever is indicted (via their lawyers) make them do so? If it's a side issue type of indictment like this, I'd hate to see people like Miller get away with such vague and misleading testimony, while someone else gets clobbered for something based on that type of testimony.

Because it's factual. The WH was trying to get the truth out, and Valerie was part of it.

Further, it sure looks like some factions at CIA were trying to distract attention from their intelligence by blaming the Vice President. The fact that the husband of a CIA employee who works on WMD analysis is aggressively peddling false information around Washington DC looks to be part of a CIA disinformation campaign.

thanks so much for coming back online. it was getting pretty depressing reading the daily kos this weekend.

one question, libby's meeting with Miller occured on June 23 the Powell INR was first sited on July 9 on Air FOrce I. How could Libby have been passing classified information if the document that disclosed the classified nature of the information was not available until after the disclosure?

If it goes to trial, iMiller will have to testify. Then when she is on the stand the Defense will ask her about what Libby told her. She will respond ending every statement with "I think". Then the Defense will ask her about her other sources. She'll refuse to answer and end up in jail again. And then the defense will call Joe, Valerie, Larry Johnson, Pincus, Kristof, Corn, Rocco Martino, Mandy Grunwald, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer. All with crappy memories and taking the fifth. Case dismissed.

thanks so much for coming back online. it was getting pretty depressing reading the daily kos this weekend.

one question, libby's meeting with Miller occured on June 23 the Powell INR was first sited on July 9 on Air FOrce I. How could Libby have been passing classified information if the document that disclosed the classified nature of the information was not available until after the disclosure?

IF any indictments happen such as perjury, classified material, etc. will people like Miller have to testify?

Very interesting because the U.S. Constitution guarantees an accused the right to confront the witnesses against him. I don't know what would happen if many of the witnesses (i.e., the reporters) refused to testify about matters germane to the accused's defense. I assume this is a problem that the SP is puzzling over.

Andrew McCarthy, former federal prosecutor and a friend of Patrick Fitzgerald (per Powerline), has an updated comment at Natl Review Online. His original comment said based on Miller's testimony things look worse for Libby. In his new post he expands on his thinking:

"RE: COULD JOSEPH WILSON BE INDICTED [Andy McCarthy]
John, just to be clear, while I think the Times story today demonstrates that the case on Scooter Libby is more serious than many people have assumed, I am not saying I believe he will be indicted based on what we now know. If I were a betting man -- and I'm not -- I would bet against it. I think it comes down to four considerations: ..."

I've even heard people use it against Bush cronies. Like you know Miers has the two most important qualifications for the job. She passed the religion test and she is a confidant of Bush's. But never fear, she is boning up on the Constitution.

For JayDee and others: When Bush's cousin called Florida for him on Fox in 2000, the import of family connections was obvious to the left.

If FEMA sent an "independent" investigator with gov't experience - i.e. Jeb Bush - to determine if the WH had responded to Katrina appropriately, everyone would be up in arms.

So when the CIA sends an "independent" investigator who alleges that we started a war on false premises, shouldn't we know that his wife, who recommended him, was not neutral on what he'd find?

It looks to me like both sides, in pushing a political narrative, abused their positions and their access to classified information and the press. If convictions come out of this, Rove, Libby, Wilson and Plame should share a cell: they all used their positions to put ostensibly secret info into the public domain to advance their storylines.

(1) She proposed it twice (second time in a memo)
(2) When Alan Foley first heard the recommendation he asked her for a memo outlining Joe's qualifications - therefore it was up to Val to get him the job. No one else had the knowledge or inclination to Bush Joe
(3) If you follow my track back on this post I point to the SCCI report which shows all the other IC elements dismissed the Wilson option. Moreover there was another, better option, and there was a parallel effort out of the embassy. Plame pushed this in the face of a lot of resistance
(4) Kristof's sources were the Wilsons - no doubt about it. That means a lot of people in the NY Times knew before the Kristof story of the Wilson's relationships. This predates any WH actions which keyed off the Kristof story.
(5) Miller's last story requires careful parsing because she never says Libby mentioned the Wilsons by name in the first June interview.

Judy talks to Libby (6-23), who disputes the claim, Cheney arranged a trip or even asked CIA to arrange a trip. CIA sent some clandestine guy on their own. Miller eventually talks to Wilson or Plame but more likely Picus and relates, that VP office is disputing the envoys story, that VP asked for the trip, among other things...what do you say to this Pincus? Pincus calls Wilson and says, "they're coming after you". Wilson is panicked because he blew it when he referred to the forgeries; at this point Pincus does not realize what a nutball Wilson really is. Wilson decides to out himself in order to back pedals "the names were wrong, the dates were wrong". So on July 6
We get
"(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"

on the same day Pincus published this, which is odd because it contradicts his own original reporting the month before, in June,

Wilson never saw the disputed documents but talked with officials whose signatures would have been required and concluded the allegations were almost certainly false. Back in Washington, he briefed CIA officers but did not draft his own report.

two days later a stranger to all, but Joe Wilson, happens to bump into Novak on the street and asks to escort him a few blocks. During this, the stranger’s one or two cursory questions is able to get Novak to spill his guts. Wilson then outs his wife to Eason Jordan bemoan the GOP hate machine.

In the meantime, Pincus calls his dinner partner, Matt Cooper to relate the full frontal assault the WH is waging on Wilson and his wife. Cooper should call Judy Miller to find out more. Cooper calls Miller and inquires on the insidious attack on Wilson and "his wife. Cooper informs her that the WH has been pushing back, everyone is talking about it. This is odd to Judy because she didn’t perceive an assault at all when she spoke with Libby.

Judy meets with Libby, asks about the heavy handed push back on the Wilson’s and Libby is miffed. How do you figure? She relates that Matt Cooper called and tells Coopers version. The subject continues on the niger trip. Libby talks to Rove, asks about this pushback campaign against the Wilson’s" Rove is just as perplexed as Libby, he has fielded very few calls, and none from Matt Cooper.
Ultimately Cooper calls Rove, who has a heads up, and doesn’t take the bait—in his email. Meanwhile David Corn has big time ESP.

There are a few a priori assumptions here that need evidence or clarification:

1. There is an assumption that Wilson and Plame were pro-Saddam Hussein, and therefore opposed to a military effort to oust him.

I'd be very interested in hearing some evidence for this point of view, particularly in light of Wilson's behavior as Ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War. Did that behavior strike you as the words and actions of someone who was "pro Saddam"?

2. Let me guess, part II: You think Wilson would have been sent IF his wife didn't push him for the task? Someone with, as far as I know, zero knowledge on nuclear weapons capabilities and development?

If you're sending someone to Country X to talk to its Ministers about possible contacts with Country Y, what qualifications do you look for? Someone with no experience in either country, who knows no one in either country, and has no contacts in either country?

Joe Wilson was not just some guy lounging around the house whose wife "decides" to "send" him to Niger. He was a retired Ambassador with 20+ years' experience in the region - and a widely respected one at that (by, among others, George HW Bush) until it became politically expedient to destroy his reputation.

Who else other than Joe Wilson should have gone? What other candidates do you know of who had been ambassadors to Iraq, who knew who the important people in Iraq were, who had long-standing contacts in Niger, and who were likely to be able to get meetings with Ministers in Niger?

And he was going to check on a specific story about a specific item: yellowcake. He was not going to check on a laboratory, or a manufacturing facility, or to look for items that might be associated with the production of nuclear weapons. Expertise in nuclear weapons capabilities wasn't required for that trip; knowledge of the regional politics and politicians was.

3. The wingers here keep talking about Wilson's "lies." It's an accepted article of faith that he's a "liar." However, no one has yet to say exactly what lies he told. And include cites, please; cites of original sources, mind you, not just other wingers' opinions and screeds, and not speeches or tracts by politicians.